Is a benefit in kind for a residence unreasonable? A step in the right direction.

Much has been written in recent years about calculating the benefit in kind for private use of a residence provided by a company. Especially since the benefit in kind for private use of a residence was almost doubled in 2012.

1. Flat-rate determination of the benefit in kind

Since 2012, in accordance with Article 18(2)(2) of the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code (KB/WIB), the benefit has been calculated at a flat rate using the following formula:

                Index-adjusted cadastral income x 100/60 x 1.25 or 3.8. 

The coefficient of 1.25 may only be applied in the case of non-index-adjusted cadastral incomes of €745 or less; the coefficient of 3.8 must be applied in all other cases.

Before 2012 the coefficient for cadastral incomes of more than €745 was only 2, instead of 3.8.

2. Flat-rate benefit vs market rent

When this formula was introduced, the question arose of whether the obligation to calculate the benefit according to a flat rate also applied in circumstances where a market rent was paid by the manager/employee for the private use. The Minister of Finance confirmed that it did, and stated that people in such a situation would still be taxed on the difference between the flat-rate benefit and the market rent, if the flat rate was higher than the rent.

This position has come under heavy criticism in the legal literature. If the rent is set in accordance with prevailing prices in the property market, there can be no question of a benefit being acquired by the manager/employee. Moreover, Article 18 of the KB/WIB refers to the aforementioned calculation only in the case of the “provision of real property or parts of real property free of charge.” If rent is paid, and certainly if it’s market rent, we can only endorse this view, and confirm that in fact there can be no question of a benefit being acquired.

3. Is a flat-rate benefit for a residence provided by a company unconstitutional?

Another point of discussion about the benefit in kind relates to the difference between calculating the benefit for a residence provided by a company and one provided by a natural or self-employed person. The benefit of the private use of a residence provided by a natural person certainly does not consist of increasing the amount by a coefficient of 1.25 or 3.8.

This discussion was recently “resolved” by the Ghent Court of Appeal. Under the Constitution, all taxpayers who are in the same situation should be treated in the same manner, and should thus also be taxed in the same manner. Different treatment is acceptable only where it is objectively and reasonably justifiable in light of the purpose of the tax, and without going beyond what is necessary to achieve that purpose. The Court of Appeal held that nowhere in the legislative texts, royal decrees or preparatory documents could be found an objective and reasonable justification for the different treatment. According to the Court, the tax authorities had also not succeeded in justifying the unequal treatment. As a result, the Court of Appeal decided that such a difference in taxation is unconstitutional.

4. Conclusion

What the impact of this decision will be in practice is not yet clear. In the first instance, we’re waiting for a reaction from the legislature before the decision has any chance of being successfully applied in practice. We think it more than likely that the tax authorities will ignore the decision for now and revert to the KB/WIB, meaning that the formula for calculating the benefit in kind, although disputed, will continue to be applied. The government may appeal the decision to the Court of Cassation or take legislative action to change the way the benefit is calculated. There is nothing to prevent a taxpayer from using a notice of objection to attempt to challenge the calculation of an excessively high benefit in kind, but it should be borne in mind that the debate will most likely end up being conducted in court.

We hope the government will take the necessary steps to bring the flat-rate calculation of the benefit in kind for private use of a residence back down to earth.

We’ll keep monitoring the situation and let you know when there are further developments.

Property planning finds itself in turbulent waters
Valuation of a usufruct: in complete (r)evolution?
Much has been said and written in the past few years about the valuation of a usufruct and where the fiscal shoe pinches. An overview of valuation problems, current trends and a look at future property planning is provided below. Valuation of a usufruct Valuation of a usufruct: a changing world Usufruct is one of the oldest property rights known and was already applied in Roman times. Usufr
This difference in treatment needs to be corrected
Benefit in kind on immovable property: tax authority abides by the court ruling (for now)
The Federal Public Service Finance published Circular 2018/C/57 on 15 May 2018 on the flat-rate valuation of the benefit in kind for providing an immovable property or a part of an immovable property free of charge to employees or managers. The flat-rate estimate of these benefits is laid down by the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code 1992 (RD/BITC 92). The Courts of Appeal of Ghent and
The 'use and enjoyment" rules explained
Freight transport and closely associated services: new rules clarified in a circular
On 31 October 2017, (previous) Royal Decree No 57, which deals with the freight transport services Department and related services, was replaced by a new RD which came into force on 23 November 2017. It clarifies the former RD in part while introducing a new rule. In order to clarify and discuss the (new) rules, the tax authorities published an administrative circular in this regard on 31 May 2018
Guidelines
Substantial changes in the obligations for partnerships
The Company Law Reform, published on 27 April 2018, is making a number of changes in the Companies Code and the Code of Economic Law. These new regulations will enter into force on 1 November 2018. A few rules will also change for partnerships. Although some clarifications will still be published, we would already like to provide the following guidelines. Changes in the Companies Code A first
Quickly detect system risks
Without a Legal Entity Identifier your company will not be trading on the stock market in 2018
  As from 3 January 2018, every legal entity that buys or sells financial instruments must have a Legal Entity Identifier or LEI. Legal Entity Identifier A LEI is a 20-digit alpha-numeric code enabling quick identification of legal entities that are active on the (international or local) financial markets. The LEI enables regulators to quickly detect system risks. Registrati
A summary of the main points
Immovable property leases to include VAT
  Although currently there is just a draft bill on this issue, which obviously can be subject to change in the meantime, we would like to summarize the main points of the upcoming revolution in the VAT landscape: immovable property leases may become subject to VAT. History Until recently, immovable property leases have – in principle – been exempt from VAT (section 44, paragr
UBO = Ultimate Beneficial Owner
The UBO register: new disclosure requirements planned for your company’s administrative body
As a result of the insertion of sections 14(1) and 14(2) into the Belgian Companies Code all companies must in the future obtain adequate, accurate and current information about their ‘ultimate beneficial owners’ (UBOs) and record the data in the new ‘UBO Register’, a central register containing data about companies and the natural persons behind them. In view of the unwavering atte
Introduction of the matrimonial property law
Is it the end of the final set-off clause or is it getting new life?
  Much has been said about the final set-off clause in recent years. After the Court of Cassation in 2017 ruled in favour of the tax payer that the claim was deductible in the scope of the payable succession duties, the Flemish regulator decided to come to the aid of the tax authorities by changing the law. What is a final set-off clause and how does it work? Many spouses married un
Also the unequal treatment gets reviewed
Benefit in kind for housing: how to anticipate the higher or lower scenario?
Discrimination as regards the benefit in kind for housing has been highlighted on several occasions. Specifically, it relates to the unequal treatment of the same benefits, whether in terms of provision by a sole trader or provision by a legal person. In the most common cases, the benefit arising from being a limited company is almost four times more expensive taxation-wise than the benefit arisin
To reduce the financial burden
Start-up reduction on social security contributions for self-employed persons
The start-up reduction was part of the 'Summer agreement' and took effect on 1 April 2018. With this initiative, the government intends to reduce the financial burden of self-employed persons in start-ups, who often have low incomes at the start of their activity, thereby stimulating entrepreneurship.  Which self-employed persons are eligible?  The reduction measure applies to all se

Subscribe to our newsletter